Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 9:56pm

Nanno

Clan: Goat-BaronsJoined: Nov 30, 2006Posts: 4797Location: Colorado

The Queen Bee

Yes, you caused the outcome of the game! How can you say you didn't?

And colluding to sit and lose is the same as colluding to surrender. I see no difference whatsoever. The outcome is exactly the same.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:10pm

markuson

Clan: OldFartsJoined: Nov 28, 2008Posts: 1136Location: Third from the Sun

My opinion of you just went down the toilette.

Should I mute my opinion or accurately describe my relation to the situation? I'm going to tell the truth, and this is exactly the way I feel about our "wonderful" administrator after playing for 5 years.

Stating your opinion with class is one thing...
...but you have shown here that you have zero.

If you are saying that you cannot "accurately state your opinion" without using words like "whore" (a highly INaccurate adjective for nanno), then it's time for you to return to elementary school and learn some basic vocabulary.

Strong opinions? Fine.
-Stated like a person with no respect for women ...or people in general?
-Lame. -Disappointing. Unacceptable. Deserving of contempt.

I get mad sometimes too. But hurling THAT kind of language at classy girls just makes you look like a complete jerk.

Knock it off.

post updated on Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:12pm

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:18pm

moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011Posts: 944Location: Mooooooooo

Yes, you caused the outcome of the game! How can you say you didn't?

And colluding to sit and lose is the same as colluding to surrender. I see no difference whatsoever. The outcome is exactly the same.

The outcome of the game is not any different than most games. Someone wins, others lose. We're not discussing the end of the game, but the means of getting there. You banned me for "colluding", not for losing to standoff. Means and ends. Different things. My means to the end is different than throwing the game. I sat and the game did the rest of the work for me. I did not throw a game, I let the game run it's natural course. Everything I did was non-action. Huge difference.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:20pm

ziche

Joined: May 2, 2011Posts: 1191Location: Australia

Who cares, it's the past isn't it? You should have no problem getting it again.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:21pm

moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011Posts: 944Location: Mooooooooo

classy girls

...=/= Nanno

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:22pm

Nanno

Clan: Goat-BaronsJoined: Nov 30, 2006Posts: 4797Location: Colorado

The Queen Bee

Non-action is the same as surrendering. It would be no different if you'd told Tinny you'd sit there and let him beat you over and over so you'd get weight and he'd get percentage. No difference whatsoever. You'd just be letting the game "take it's course" just like with the Standoff bot. Rigging games. You had to collude with another player or use two accounts in order to do this. Unfortunately you were able to convince another player to go in with you on it.
=(

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:24pm

markuson

Clan: OldFartsJoined: Nov 28, 2008Posts: 1136Location: Third from the Sun

Yes, you caused the outcome of the game! How can you say you didn't?

And colluding to sit and lose is the same as colluding to surrender. I see no difference whatsoever. The outcome is exactly the same.

The outcome of the game is not any different than most games. Someone wins, others lose. We're not discussing the end of the game, but the means of getting there. You banned me for "colluding", not for losing to standoff. Means and ends. Different things. My means to the end is different than throwing the game. I sat and the game did the rest of the work for me. I did not throw a game, I let the game run it's natural course. Everything I did was non-action. Huge difference.

It's all very simple, moo.

If you are not there to try and win...don't play

post updated on Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:25pm

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:29pm

hiphopfanz1

Joined: Jul 23, 2011Posts: 652Location: Dota 2 Universe

Forget the past.

Look to the future.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:34pm

moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011Posts: 944Location: Mooooooooo

Non-action is the same as surrendering.

Surrender is an action. If there was no standoff bot, there wouldn't have been any rankings changes. I did not cause my rank to move, standoff did. I used him, yes, so I gamed the system. Gaming the system is not against the rules, especially if you asked the system to be fixed and the response was, "it won't be a big deal".

It would be no different if you'd told Tinny you'd sit there and let him beat you over and over so you'd get weight and he'd get percentage. No difference whatsoever. You'd just be letting the game "take it's course" just like with the Standoff bot.

Tinny is not a bot. Losing intentionally to tinny is not gaming the system, but giving him the games. Standoff is not a human, although ranked. Now you've made it so standoff is always a cabin boy, of which I greatly support, and this is no longer a way to game the system. I gamed the system, not threw games.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:50pm

Nanno

Clan: Goat-BaronsJoined: Nov 30, 2006Posts: 4797Location: Colorado

The Queen Bee

It makes no difference whether you throw the games to a person or a bot. The action is exactly the same. Purposely sitting and letting anyone else win is cheating. Besides, you still had to get another player to team with you to make the exploit work! This is commonly known as "teaming".

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 10:57pm

moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011Posts: 944Location: Mooooooooo

A player is not part of the system. A bot is. It's like if cuzco was ranked. Cuzco is unranked because people were ranking up by beating him. He wasn't a player, but part of the system. You removed the loophole in the system by making all games with bots not count. Also supported. To "play" standoff, you do need another player, true. I couldn't play myself, as that is cheating. I played concrete. We hit start. That was it. Standoff is not a player, but part of the system. That is the difference. That's why it is not cheating.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 11:09pm

Nanno

Clan: Goat-BaronsJoined: Nov 30, 2006Posts: 4797Location: Colorado

The Queen Bee

I couldn't play myself, as that is cheating.

There is absolutely no difference between playing two of your own accounts and getting another player to play in your favor. None whatsoever. If it would have been cheating for you to use two of your own accounts, then it is certainly cheating to get another player to use his account in your favor. There isn't any difference at all. (Actually, I'd have felt better if you'd used two of your own accounts so that only you would have gotten in trouble.)

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 11:13pm

Nanno

Clan: Goat-BaronsJoined: Nov 30, 2006Posts: 4797Location: Colorado

The Queen Bee

Oh, and I'll say this one more time for emphasis:

IF YOU HAD EXPLOITED THE BOT BY LOSING THE GAMES NATURALLY AND WITHOUT TEAMING TO DO SO, THEN YOUR RANK WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATE.

There was nothing wrong with exploiting the bot. There was everything wrong with teaming up with another player in order rig the games for that particular outcome. You should have played 3-ways to stack the odds in your favor of getting a loss to Standoff. You should NOT have teamed up with another player to agree beforehand to lose games to your advantage.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 20, 2012 @ 11:13pm

I'd forgotten that I aborted that game. I probably should not have. I was wrong and I apologize.

I don't recall you aborting that game at all. As I remember it he won. =\

I was the other person there. Also, you're giving yourself a tad too much credit there tx. I knew very well you hadn't left, it was obvious. I just thought you'd actually stepped away for a moment. And we both thought we we big enough to knock the other out and take you down before you returned.

No one was stupid enough to think you were gone for good. I did, and still do however disapprove of you having done that in a tournament.

As to the rest of the fight, I'll leave that to the two of you. I do however firmly agree that you were cheating.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 21, 2012 @ 6:08am

moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011Posts: 944Location: Mooooooooo

"There is absolutely no difference between playing two of your own accounts and getting another player to play in your favor. None whatsoever. If it would have been cheating for you to use two of your own accounts, then it is certainly cheating to get another player to use his account in your favor. There isn't any difference at all."

You're arguing that my end is wrong because the result is the same as another means, being cheating. You argue 'end' here.

School buses are yellow
Bananas are yellow
School buses are bananas

"IF YOU HAD EXPLOITED THE BOT BY LOSING THE GAMES NATURALLY AND WITHOUT TEAMING TO DO SO, THEN YOUR RANK WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATE."

Now you argue means. You say if I did it the right way, that result is inconsequential. This contradicts the first argument that says, "The outcome is exactly the same." (top of page)

You contradict yourself Nanno. You're argument seemingly works only because you unknowingly change it every counter-argument.

Here's how to know if I was cheating or not: Everyone loses to standoff. Losing is not a punishable offense, but it is how you do so. We must investigate means and means alone.

What was my means? I talked to concretewave to sit in a room and not move. Going to a server is not a punishable offense. Not moving is not a punishable offense. Talking to concretewave is not a punishable offense. Agreeing to do something is not a punishable offense (though the 'something' may be, in this case we agreed to sit, not a punishable offense). If going to a server is punishable, ban everyone. If talking to concretewave is punishable, ban trucing (also agreements of inaction). If a mutual agreement to do something is punishable, ban everyone for agreeing on the settings and agreeing in truces and just about anything. If the lack of action is punishable, anyone who leaves the game to grab a snack and misses his/her time to shine should be banned.

An example: God makes man. Man will do evil things. Does God's foreknowledge of man's evil deeds make God, who made man, the cause of evil? Nope! Foreknowledge is not causation. I knew I'd lose. I knew I would rank up. But I caused none of it. I started the game, and the game did the rest. I didn't influence my results, the game's innate structure was the only influence to the results. Again, I had no action.

Your counter argument is that it is the same as surrendering, but it is not. Surrendering is an action. It is me manipulating the game. I would be the cause because the act of surrender is not innate in the operations of the game, but in the operations of the player. I instead did nothing, which means I had no influence over the results. I knew what the results would be, but I did not fudge the ballot.

Was it dirty? Oh yes, but I prefer "clever". I found a loophole and used it to my advantage. It wasn't cheating and it got me to where I was going.

And stop playing the, "poor other player =(" card. I argued for 5 days for you to unban concrete until you gave up on his 10 day ban early. That was me, not you. You are attempting to manipulate readers to give a false impression of past events. I wanted concrete unbanned more than anyone.

@Concrete

If I lacked anything in trying to get you unbanned back in the day when this happened, please mention so. I want all truth here on the table. Be brutally honest if I didn't argue in the chat room and on the forums enough.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 21, 2012 @ 6:11am

moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011Posts: 944Location: Mooooooooo

"I do however firmly agree that you were cheating."

And this is why I no longer respect you either. You used to be someone I thought was smart. Now your just a guy with a hot sister. Also, when this all happened, you were unsure. You couldn't make a judgement. You waited for Nanno to swing the banhammer. If you truly thought that way, you're not only an idiot but a coward.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 21, 2012 @ 6:21am

ak.inhumane

Joined: Mar 12, 2012Posts: 124

I dont think moooo even understands what nanno's telling him >.>
the fact that you had another player sitting there and delibrately allowing the bot to win, is teaming. It isn't legit. You guys are cheaters. You were scared tinny was gonna get it before you, so you used a teaming shortcut.

Same with muse and asdfghj, that loser throwed the game to muse so he could get his flag.

LOSERS

post updated on Mar 21, 2012 @ 6:23am

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 21, 2012 @ 6:36am

moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011Posts: 944Location: Mooooooooo

Zen, you're a child and go back to mommy. I addressed that above. Again, it's not teaming because we didn't influence the results.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 21, 2012 @ 7:04am

d1v1n3_7x

Joined: Nov 26, 2011Posts: 19

Loser, you did influence the result. Umad. Thats it. U raging. U cheat, hack, suck. You=going down. Just admit it, ur GA was nothng more then luck, I bet u wouldn't even be able to get it today. Pff. U WEAK.

Re: playing with two accounts (like in the old galcon) :: Mar 21, 2012 @ 7:11am

ak.inhumane

Joined: Mar 12, 2012Posts: 124

So tell me, how did it not influence the result? If its a 3-way, and 2 players team to take down the third player, then one of the partners surrender to the other.

Or another exemple. You do like evil_genius and his 'tarded friends, they all /surrender to him, you'll say they didn't influence the result? You and concrete joined the room in the intension of allowing the bot to win, just like good genius had the intension of allowing evil genius to win. Its the same thing wether its a bot or not, wake up.